metrics

• Upcoming Application Deadline for the EAA Annual Congress Host Programme

  Deadline for Application is April 15th 2026

  Following the successful launch of the EAA Annual Congress Host Programme at the 2025 congress in Rome, the EAA Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee (DEIC) is delighted to continue the initiative at the 2026 Annual Congress in Prague. Building on the positive feedback from participants in Rome, the programme aims to make the congress experience more welcoming, accessible, productive and engaging for first-time attendees.

  What is the Host Programme?

  Due to the size of the congress, it can sometimes be challenging for new members to connect with colleagues and navigate the programme. The Host Programme pairs first‑time attendees with experienced EAA members who help them navigate the congress, connect with colleagues to expand their network, and engage more fully with the academic accounting community.

  The main idea is that EAA Hosts will initiate contact with Attendees by email before the congress and arrange to meet at the venue. A welcoming space with drinks and refreshments will be reserved on Wednesday 27 May from 12:00–13:00 for participants to meet before the Congress’ Opening Session. Hosts and Attendees are also encouraged to connect throughout the congress, including at parallel sessions, symposia, and social events. EAA DEIC members will be available to answer questions, at the EAA Host programme hangout corner where host/attendees can meet throughout the congress.

  Using the EAA Annual Congress Programme, Hosts may also suggest sessions and activities that Attendees might find valuable. The goal is for Hosts to share their knowledge and experience so that Attendees can make the most of their first EAA Annual Congress. Hosts are also encouraged to introduce Attendees to other colleagues, helping early career researchers and those new to the EAA community build their own professional networks. Ideally, Hosts will attend their Attendees’ presentations and, after the congress, offer to stay in touch.

  This year we are introducing a drinks event on the last day of the congress for everyone involved in the Host Programme. This will take place on Friday 29^th May at 15:30–16:30, immediately after the DEIC Symposium 9, to thank Hosts and give participants another opportunity to connect.

   Interested in being a Host?

  If you have attended at least two EAA Annual Congresses and would like to support a new attendee, please complete the Host application form.

   Are you a first-time Attendee at the 2026 EAA Annual Congress in Prague?

  If you would appreciate guidance and conversation from an experienced EAA member, please complete the Attendee application form

  Please submit your application no later than April 15^th at 11:59 pm CET.

   Please contact us if you have any questions about the EAA DEIC Host Programme

   

  FAQs

  How many Attendees will be assigned to each Host?
  Each Host will be matched with 2-3 Attendees. The DEIC will match new members with volunteer Hosts on a first-come, first-served basis, so please register early.

  How are Hosts matched with Attendees?
  We aim to match Attendees with Hosts who have similar teaching or research areas. We will also consider arrival times, so please make sure to provide any relevant details to help with matching.

  How will I receive contact information?
  We will notify you once the matching process has been completed. The DEIC will email both Hosts and Attendees with names and contact information.

  Who qualifies as an Attendee?
  Anyone attending their first EAA Annual Congress.

  Missed connections?
  Even with the best intentions, plans can sometimes go awry. If you are having trouble connecting at the congress, please visit the EAA Host Programme hangout corner. There will be a QR code that you can scan and start exchanging messages with Host or Attendee.

  What are the Hosts expected to do?

  Hosts are encouraged to:

  • Contact Attendees before the congress
  • Meet during the Wednesday afternoon Host programme welcome meeting
  • Introduce Attendees to colleagues
  • Suggest relevant sessions
  • Attend the Attendee’s presentation where possible

  What are the Attendees expected to do?

  Attendees are encouraged to:

  • Respond to Host initial contact
  • Meet during the Wednesday afternoon Host programme welcome meeting
  • Share any specific enquiry of interest with Host
  • Invite the Hosts to their presentation where possible
  • Attend the Friday EAA Host Programme thank you meeting

• EAA Education Survey 2025

  Brief description

  The EAA Education Committee recently conducted a survey to gather members’ perspectives of accounting education. We received a total of 90 responses, primarily from tenured faculty members with extensive teaching experience (over 50% of respondents have been teaching for more than 16 years). The respondents underscore the importance of their educational activities, though this is perceived as slightly less central compared to their research endeavors.

  EAA Members’ Future Expectations

  Respondents expressed a clear interest in enhancing their teaching skills and methodologies. Many indicated a desire to learn more about adopting innovative learning approaches, such as case studies, collaborative learning, and problem/project-based learning and digital teaching technologies, such as generative AI, and digital tests and exams.

  Specifically, the most requested learning methodologies include:

  • Problem/Project Based Learning (PBL): 53%
  • Case studies: 51%
  • Collaborative learning: 45%
  • Competence-based learning: 40%
  • Design thinking: 40%
  • Gamification: 40%
  • Flipped Class: 28%
  • Peer feedback: 27%
  • Peer instruction: 19%
  • Dialogic Learning: 3%

   

  When it comes to digital teaching technologies, there’s a strong demand for knowledge on:

  • Generative AI (e.g., Large Language Models): 85%
  • Digital tests/exams: 44%
  • Learning analytics: 40%
  • Gaming: 36%
  • Learning management systems (e.g., Blackboard, Canvas, Moodle, other): 33%
  • Media production (e.g., video, podcasts, photographs, other): 28%
  • Webinar (recorded sessions) – to be viewed before or after a class meeting: 25%
  • Hybrid class (face to face and online class simultaneously): 24%
  • Social Media (Blogs, Facebook, Instagram, Podcast, Vlogs, Youtube Channel, Tiktok, other): 20%
  • Online class: 19%
  • Virtual/augmented reality: 19%
  • Spreadsheets: 18%
  • Voting systems: 14%
  • Video conference system (e.g., Google meet, Zoom, other): 13%

   

  Our Committee’s Response

  Our primary task in the EAA Education Committee is to serve our members. We asked you to tell us what kind of activities you would like the EAA to focus on, and at what level. Two main themes emerged strongly from your responses: Sustainability (at an advanced level) and AI in Education (at intermediate and advanced levels). Several other pertinent topics, such as Teaching differences in Undergraduate and Postgraduate education, Program content versus program form, Cryptoassets, Gamification, and Employability skills, were also frequently mentioned.

  Regarding the delivery of these new topics, members indicated a clear preference for existing channels such as Online Workshops and Courses, and the Education Committee Symposium during the EAA Annual Congress.

  We sincerely thank you for your time and effort in completing this survey. Your valuable responses are instrumental in helping the EAA identify how we can best support and enhance your educational development.

  On behalf of the entire EAA Education Committee,

  Anastasia Kopita (Chair)

• Academic Empathy Dialogue on Tax and Taxation

  The EAA Virtual Activities Committee is delighted to announce that the next Academic Empathy Dialogue on Tax and Taxation will be held on April 20, 2026 at 3:00pm Brussels time. 

  This Academic Empathy Dialogue brings together Caren Sureth-Sloane and Lotta Björklund Larsen to explore how different disciplinary perspectives shape our understanding of taxation. The Dialogue will be moderated by Diana Falsetta. While both scholars study the role of taxes in shaping individual and societal behavior, their approaches differ markedly. Caren Sureth-Sloane’s work, grounded in economics and accounting, examines how taxation influences corporate decisions such as investment, risk-taking, and international business activity, as well as firms’ tax compliance and its enforcement. Lotta Björklund Larsen draws on qualitative social research and ethnographic methods to study how various stakeholders – individual and corporate taxpayers as well as tax administrators – on the tax arena interpret and practice taxation. She has explored issues such as trust, legitimacy, fairness surrounding compliance and takes a special interest in how various epistemologies foster tax compliance.

  By bringing together economic and anthropological perspectives, this dialogue seeks to foster mutual understanding across research traditions and encourage new ways of thinking about taxation as both an economic and a social phenomenon. The discussion will highlight opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration and invite accounting researchers to reflect on how different methodological lenses can enrich the study of tax systems and taxpayer behavior.

  Registration is open at this link. 

• International Rules, Local Meanings: Culture and Diversity in Accounting and Governance – Event Summary, Learning and Future Research Directions

  The EAA DEI Committee hosted a session on how culture and diversity shape accounting, auditing, and governance. The discussion started from a simple but often neglected point: culture is not peripheral to accounting practice. It influences how accountability is understood, how rules are interpreted, whose judgments are treated as credible, and which practices come to be seen as normal.

  Chaired by Timur Uman (Jönköping International Business School, Sweden), the session brought together three complementary perspectives. Christopher Nobes (Royal Holloway, University of London, UK) examined how international accounting rules encounter different legal traditions, institutional settings, and professional practices across countries. Barbee Myers Oakes (Workplace Communication Strategist, USA) discussed DEI work in academic and professional accounting settings, with a focus on intercultural communication, inclusion, and trust. Timur Umanmapped how research in accounting, auditing, governance, and management control has addressed culture, ethnicity, diversity, and intersectionality, and identified key gaps for future work.

  A central theme was that “culture” is a broad and sometimes slippery concept. The session showed that, in accounting research, culture has been approached in several ways: through national value systems, cultural distance, language and translation, ethnicity and group membership, and subjective identity and belonging. The panel emphasized that these are not interchangeable. Different approaches capture different mechanisms, ranging from interpretation and communication to legitimacy, exclusion, and unequal scrutiny.

  The presentations also highlighted that prior research has established an important point: harmonized or international rules do not automatically produce uniform practice. Even under common standards such as IFRS, differences persist in interpretation, judgment, disclosure, and implementation. The speakers argued that these differences cannot be explained by vague references to “culture” alone. More precise attention must be paid to legal systems, colonial legacies, professional traditions, stock market structures, institutional incentives, and organizational routines.

  Another major strand of the discussion concerned diversity, equity, and inclusion in the accounting profession and academia. The session moved beyond representation alone and asked how to shift from simply counting diverse participants to ensuring that diverse voices actually shape decisions. This led to a focus on inclusion, influence, and trust. Questions of who speaks, who is heard, whose concerns survive into final decisions, and how fairness is experienced were treated as essential to understanding governance and control in practice.

  Barbee Myers Oakes stressed that inclusion requires more than formal access. It depends on cultural intelligence, psychological safety, common language, and organizational trust. She argued that leaders and institutions must pay attention not only to visible dimensions of diversity, but also to the many less visible differences that shape communication, conflict resolution, authority, and belonging. Trust emerged as a key concept linking DEI to organizational effectiveness: trust in systems, trust in leaders’ judgments, and trust that people are valued and treated fairly.

  The session also identified several promising directions for future research. Rather than treating culture as a fixed country-level variable, the panel encouraged researchers to trace how meaning is produced in practice: how standards are translated into policies, templates, discussions, negotiations, and ultimately reported outcomes. Participants were also encouraged to study inclusion and influence directly in boards, audit committees, and management processes, and to examine how credibility, scrutiny, and evidence thresholds may shift across culturally diverse settings.

  The interactive discussion and Q&A reinforced that these issues matter not only for scholarship, but also for teaching, standard-setting, and professional life. Across the presentations, one conclusion was clear: accounting is never culturally neutral. International rules always meet local meanings, and understanding that interaction is essential for both rigorous research and more inclusive professional practice.

  The Slides with presentations including future research directions can be found in the Diversity Equity nd Inclusion webspace under Learning on DEI and Accounting by following this link: https://eaa-online.org/arc/learning-on-dei-and-accounting/

• Can budgeting impact employee wellbeing?

  Although many may think of accounting as something abstract that happens only in spreadsheets, our new study shows that budgeting can impact employee wellbeing. Specifically, based on a large survey in a well-known multinational, we find that participative budgeting practices can enhance job satisfaction and diminish presenteeism of middle managers.

  Stress at work
  First, let’s consider for a moment the typical middle manager. Sandwiched between top-management and the employees, they often find themselves in stressful situations. A 2025 report by Deloitte[i] found that 40% of the managers experienced a decline in their mental health after taking on a managerial or leadership role, and another survey[ii] finds that almost three out of four middle managers sometimes or always feel stressed at work. What can be done to reduce their stress and enhance their job-related wellbeing?

  

  Figure 1 – Key relations examined. All hypotheses are confirmed in our study. Source: Van der Kolk et al. (2026).

  Participatory work practices and wellbeing
  In our study, we find that giving middle managers a greater say in budgeting decisions (also known as participative budgeting) can improve their wellbeing. Participative budgeting allows middle managers to actively shape their department’s financial targets rather than simply following top-down mandates. So, budgeting is less top-down, and more bottom-up.

  Our findings suggest that giving managers a greater say in the budgeting process increases their perceptions of the fairness of internal procedures and enhances their bonds with the organization. Together, these factors make middle managers happier with their jobs. So, their job-related wellbeing, of which job satisfaction is an important dimension, increases. But there’s more!

  Presenteeism
  We all know absenteeism: it is when employees are not present at work for illness or some other reason. In our study, however, we focus on presenteeism, which can best be understood as health-related productivity loss. Put differently, it’s when employees don’t feel well, but still show up at work. As a result, they are less productive than normal, which is what presenteeism is about. Compared to absenteeism, presenteeism is less easy to observe.

  In our study, we find that participative budgeting and higher job satisfaction reduce presenteeism. This is an important finding, as it stresses that participative work practices are not only beneficial for employees, but also positively impact organizations through increased productivity.

  Positive impact
  As stress and mental health issues continue to grow, our study contributes to a better understanding of how everyday organizational practices like accounting can influence wellbeing. Empowering middle managers by giving them a greater say in the budgeting process may be a small change that yields substantial benefits for the entire workforce. Read our full paper (open access) here.

   

  Reference to full paper (open access)
  Van der Kolk, B., Schoute, M., Kuroki, M. (2026). Participative Budgeting, Job Satisfaction, and Presenteeism: Survey Evidence from Middle Managers. BMC Public Health, In press. Link: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-26572-5

   

  Bios
  Dr. Berend van der Kolk is an associate professor of management accounting at VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  Dr. Martijn Schoute is an assistant professor of management accounting at VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  Dr. Makoto Kuroki is a professor of accounting at Yokohama City University, Japan.

   

  Endnotes
  [i] Source: Deloitte’s 2025 Global Human Capital Trends survey.
  [ii] Source: Capterra’s 2023 Middle Manager Survey.

  [This blog was also published on socialsciencespace.com.]

• Echoes of Populism in Corporate Reporting: Evidence from Poland

  How do contemporary political forces shape what companies say about themselves?

  In a new paper, Echoes of Right-Wing Populism in Annual Reports of Polish Listed State-Controlled Companies, published in Accounting in Europe, we explore how right-wing populism has leaked into corporate narrative disclosures in a European context.

   Drawing on the populist syndrome model, the study analyses annual reports of Poland’s largest listed state-controlled companies before and after 2015, when a right-wing populist party came to power. We identify four recurring narrative threads that subtly and selectively echo populist rhetoric. We demonstrate that these incremental narrative elements resonate with both the core ideological features of populism and its local right-wing characteristics.

   Our findings suggest that corporate disclosures are not neutral reflections of reality. Instead, they serve as strategic responses to political and institutional pressures, enabling companies closely tied to the state to position themselves as “insiders”. By mobilising the concept of corporate populism, the paper contributes to accounting research on narratives, politics, and the role of reporting in polarised societies. The study also offers insights for researchers and practitioners interested in how accounting practices evolve under populist rule, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe.

   Łada, M., Kozarkiewicz, A., Haslam, J., & Łazarowicz, E. (2026). Echoes of Right-Wing Populism in Annual Reports of Polish Listed State-Controlled Companies. Accounting in Europe, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2026.2623965 

    

  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17449480.2026.2623965

   

   

• Capabilities-related disclosures and investors’ recognition of organisational resilience – an automated textual analysis of 10-K filings

  Recent economic crises have reinforced top management’s attention for organisationalresilience, i.e. to consider how firms can absorb and recover from adverse events in their business environment. To strengthen organisational resilience, firms require capabilities that stabilise the current business and effect changes to fit the new environment. Given the limited informativeness of financial disclosures to predict a firm’s future, reliable information about firms’ capabilities becomes increasingly strategically relevant for investors.

  Based on a sample of 1,020 publicly traded U.S. firms, this study analyses how pre-crisis information relating to the capabilities of firms for creating slack (i.e. financial cushions), supporting learning (i.e. incremental changes), and fostering innovation (i.e. fundamental changes) is associated with investor reactions that are consistent with a recognition of organisational resilience during an adverse event (COVID-19). To quantify the extent of capabilities-related information, we apply an automated textual analysis to voluntary disclosures in the Item 1 and Item 7 of 10-K filings in a cross-sectional sample of firms listed in the S&P 1500 Index (2018-2022). We use the share prices of our sample firms to create a comprehensive measure of organisational resilience, considering three sequential stages of adversity. Specifically, we quantify a firm’s absorption level through the decrease in the share price at the onset of adversity, its adaptation level through the recovery of the share price amid adversity, and its transformation level through the increase in the share price following adversity.

  At the onset of adversity, we find that disclosures about slack capabilities appear to mitigate the immediate decrease in the share price (absorption), suggesting that investors might prioritise information on the financial soundness of a firm over its ability to conduct changes. In the intermediate term, we find that disclosures about slack, learning, and innovation capabilities are associated with an accelerated share price recovery for most sample firms(adaptation), suggesting that investors then tend to recognise information on firms’ ability to implement changes. In the longer term, we find that disclosures about innovation capabilities are primarily associated with an increased share price (transformation), which suggests that innovation disclosures may create expectations among investors of fundamental rather than incremental changes. Our empirical results indicate that capabilities-related disclosures are differently associated with investor reactions as firms progress through sequential stages of adversity. The usefulness of capabilities-related disclosures for investors is a new and important finding given the increasing uncertainty among investors regarding firms’ ability to manage prospective challenges.

  The reference for this article can be found below:

  Neunsinger, C., Reimann, L., & Fischer, T. M. (2026). Capabilities-related disclosures and investors’ recognition of organisational resilience – an automated textual analysis of 10-K filings. European Accounting Review, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2025.2606678

• Teaching Sustainability Reporting as Practice: Reflections from the Classroom

  by Thorsten Sellhorn, LMU Munich School of Management

  At the recent EAA EFRAG ISSB Sustainability Reporting Standards Education Workshop, I shared some reflections on how I have tried to bring sustainability reporting into the classroom—not through a grand pedagogical innovation, but through concrete teaching practices anchored in regulatory developments and real-world data.

  My perspective is shaped by more than 25 years of teaching, mostly in financial reporting, and more recently by our work on the Sustainability Reporting Navigator (SRN). The SRN is a digital platform that supports research, regulation, and education by collecting, benchmarking, and analyzing sustainability disclosures—initially under the CSRD/ESRS, but we are gearing up to increasingly cover ISSB standards and ISSB-compliant reports as well.

  Over time, I’ve come to believe that three core assumptions guide my thinking:

  1. Sustainability reporting is not an end in itself—sustainability is: ecological, surely, but also environmental and social. BUT:

  2. Sustainability reporting (including sustainability-related financial disclosure)
     provides critical information to providers of capital (the “financial materiality
     perspective”).

  3. Well-calibrated and enforced sustainability reporting requirements that bring out
     corporate impacts on people and the planet (including “externalities”) can ‘nudge’
     companies towards more ecologically and socially sustainable business conduct—
     often, I suspect, to these companies’ own long-term benefit (the “impact
     materiality perspective”).

  These beliefs inform my teaching. Let me briefly highlight three key messages that I think may resonate beyond our own experience at LMU Munich.

  1. Sustainability reporting education needs integration—not silos.

  At LMU Munich School of Management, rather than treat sustainability reporting as a standalone topic, we embed it across our accounting curriculum. Whether in introductory courses, IFRS-based financial reporting, or valuation and analysis, students encounter sustainability topics in ways that reflect their practical and regulatory relevance. For example, we use the SRN’s report archive and AI assistant in introductory courses to demonstrate real corporate disclosures. In more advanced courses, students use the SRN to analyze ESG-related risk disclosures, or trace connectivity between financial and sustainability reporting.

  2. Students engage more deeply when working with real data and real standards.

  We’ve involved over 150 students from four universities in collecting ESG transparency data for academic projects—together producing over 750,000 data points on indicators such as emissions and workforce composition. Many students use this data for their BSc, MSc, or PhD theses, often in combination with internships at preparers or audit firms.

  More recently, students helped prepare our School’s own voluntary sustainability report (under EFRAG’s VSME standard). They analyzed academic travel data to calculate carbon footprints and assess related risks. This work doesn’t just create engagement—it builds technical and interpretive skills grounded in current regulatory requirements.

  3. Sustainability reporting remains a vital professional competence—despite the backlash.

  Involving students in our ongoing research—e.g., on ESRS adoption or climate disclosure in financial statements—has shown us just how motivated they are to understand the evolving sustainability reporting landscape. From experimental studies on materiality assessments to field-level analyses of ESRS implementation, we invite students to contribute as research assistants and co-creators.

  That said, many students today express unease. They perceive the political headwinds—especially in the U.S., but also in Europe’s regulatory debates—and wonder whether sustainability reporting has a real future. I believe it does, and that it’s our job as educators and researchers to show that the work remains essential, rigorous, and value-relevant.

  Looking Ahead

  We continue to build out the SRN as an open-science platform for transparency and performance—supporting educators, students, and researchers alike. But more broadly, I see value in teaching sustainability reporting not as a separate craft, but as an integrated part of accounting education. It’s about connecting students with the standards, the data, and the purpose of reporting—while keeping the focus where it ultimately belongs: on sustainability itself.

  If you’re interested in joining the SRN initiative—whether as an educator, researcher, or contributor—please feel free to reach out: sellhorn@lmu.de. 

• ‘Are we good? or do we need to keep going?’: unraveling auditors’ comfort with evidence sufficiency determinations

  Suppose you think of auditors’ work as completing a puzzle. Auditors can’t form a complete picture to conclude that the financial statements are “free from material misstatement” when evidence is missing or incorrect.

   

  Audit evidence, then, is the information the auditors rely on to form a sound judgment.

   

  But not all evidence is created equal. The standards emphasize two key qualities. First, the evidence must be appropriate, meaning it must be both relevant and reliable. Evidence must also be sufficient, referring to the quantity of evidence considered enough to convincingly support the auditor’s opinion.

   

  While audit standards state that evidence must be “sufficient and appropriate,” in practice, those standards rarely specify precisely how much evidence is enough.

   

  Drawing on interviews with 45 auditors from firms of varying sizes, we analyzed how professionals determine that they have collected sufficient appropriate evidence to conclude.

   

  We found that auditors typically begin with established guidance: predefined document lists, criteria, and clear sampling and testing thresholds. These structured tools offer initial certainty, but they often fall short in complex or ambiguous situations, where risk, estimation, or unusual transactions challenge expectations. In such cases, auditors described a shift from checklist-based reasoning to a more adaptive, fluid process of interpreting and contextualizing evidence.

   

  A central finding is that comfort drives many sufficiency decisions. Comfort reflects a provisional state that emerges through iterative judgment. When discomfort arises, auditors adjust expectations by revising thresholds, gathering incremental evidence, or forming new mental models. They also draw on prior experience, client history, and peer consultation to recalibrate what counts as enough evidence.

   

  This suggests that evidence sufficiency is not a one-time determination, but a recursive feedback loop between structured procedures, interpersonal interactions, and auditors’ affective sense of when evidence sufficiency has been achieved. In practice, the process is shaped by interpersonal interactions as much as technical standards: discussions with clients, specialists, and reviewers often tip the balance toward either “we’re good” or “we need to keep going.”

   

  Overall, the study contributes to a more realistic understanding of how sufficiency judgments are made. By uncovering how auditors blend procedural rules with evolving discomfort/comfort cues, our findings offer insights for standard setters, regulators, and practitioners seeking clearer guidance on evidence expectations, especially in complex areas involving estimates and uncertainty.

   

  The reference for this article can be found below:

  Altiero, E. C., Baudot, L., & Hazgui, M. (2025). ‘Are we good? or do we need to keep going?’: unraveling auditors’ comfort with evidence sufficiency determinations. European Accounting Review, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2025.2589183

• Expectation management through private interactions: evidence from in-house meetings

  We investigate how managers use private channels to adjust analysts’ forecasts, based on a unique dataset of firms’ private in-house meetings in China. For firms facing strong expectation management incentives, we find that compared to analysts who do not attend their private meetings, those who attend produce steeper forecast walkdowns, suggesting that managers with such incentives opportunistically exploit private interactions to dampen analysts’ forecasts. Moreover, this private guidance is more effective if the meeting attendees include both mutual funds and analysts or if meetings occur after the current fiscal year-end. Further analyses indicate that analysts’ incentives to gain better access to management information and secure underwriting business induce their cooperative behaviour. We further identify unique roles of private versus public guidance in managing expectations. Overall, we depict a dynamic and interactive process of private guidance.

  The reference for this article can be found below:

  Hu, J., & Li, T. (2025). Expectation management through private interactions: evidence from in-house meetings. European Accounting Review, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2025.2593373